General defends Haditha decision

He recommended murder charges

Marine General James Mattis arrives at Camp Pendleton on Monday, March 22, to testify in the military hearing of Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich concerning events in Haditha, Iraq, in 2005.
— Charlie Neuman / Union-Tribune

Marine General James Mattis arrives at Camp Pendleton on Monday, March 22, to testify in the military hearing of Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich concerning events in Haditha, Iraq, in 2005.
— Charlie Neuman / Union-Tribune

Gen. James Mattis, the four-star commander who recommended murder charges against Marines accused of a civilian massacre in Haditha, Iraq, testified Monday that he acted after an exhaustive review and was not prejudiced by unlawful advice as the cases progressed.

Mattis, now the head of U.S. Joint Forces Command, spoke at a pretrial hearing at Camp Pendleton for Staff Sgt. Frank Wuterich, the last of eight defendants to face court martial in the Nov. 19, 2005, incident. Six other Marines implicated in the Haditha investigation have had charges dropped, and one was acquitted.

Although Mattis has testified in previous Haditha hearings, it is rare for such a high-ranking officer to appear in a military court.

The Haditha incident provoked international outrage and led to the tightening of the rules of engagement to provide greater protection for noncombatants in Iraq and other conflicts.

Wuterich, a 30-year-old Marine based at Camp Pendleton, was charged with voluntary manslaughter, among other offenses. After a roadside bombing killed one Marine, Wuterich and his team from the 3rd Battalion, 1st Marine regiment responded by storming nearby homes and killing 24 Iraqi men, women and children as they searched for the attackers.

Wuterich’s attorneys seek to dismiss the case against him, arguing that commanders were unlawfully influenced by a military legal adviser who had recused himself because of his participation in the initial investigation.

Mattis said the colonel at the heart of the argument for unlawful command influence did not taint his impartiality: He “never offered, and I never asked for, input on the … cases.”

“I intended to have a better grasp than anyone before I subject Marines to the kind of situation we are in today,” Mattis said, referring to the courtroom. “But I also needed legal advice.”

Wuterich is charged with voluntary manslaughter, aggravated assault, reckless endangerment, dereliction of duty and obstruction of justice. If convicted, he could be sentenced to more than 160 years in the brig.

Testimony on the motion to dismiss is expected to take a week, and the judge, Lt. Col. David M. Jones, said he will rule soon after it wraps up.

Wuterich’s legal team, including former Marine Haytham Faraj, suggested yesterday that there had been an appearance of command influence by noting that Mattis — as well as the general who later took his place as commander of Marine forces in the Middle East — held meetings discussing Haditha matters while Col. John Ewers was present.

No one had improperly advised him, Mattis testified. He said he used nights, weekends and long flights to read thousands of pages in the case and consulted military lawyers who stepped in to fill the colonel’s shoes.

In 2008, a military judge threw out the case against the highest-ranking Marine charged in the Haditha incident, battalion commander Lt. Col. Jeffrey Chessani, after the defense argued a similar point. Chessani had been charged with not following a lawful order and with dereliction of duty for not properly investigating the incident.

In that case, the judge ruled that Mattis improperly allowed Ewers, a potential witness for the prosecution, to join deliberations in the case. The judge said the general created a real or perceived conflict of interest.

Neal Puckett, a former Marine Corps judge who is one of Wuterich’s civilian attorneys, said in an interview that his team will introduce more evidence of unlawful command influence this week, involving more actors and incidents than in the Chessani case.

Puckett said it is of little consequence that Mattis’ successor, retired Gen. Samuel Helland, was the one who eventually referred Wuterich for court martial: “He was on the staff during all their discussions, so any taint carries over.”

“Unlawful command influence doesn’t have to actually exist. If it looks like it exists, that is so taboo that the whole case can be thrown out,” Puckett said.

In Chessani’s case, military judge Col. Steven Folsom described his ruling as drastic but necessary, calling unlawful command influence “the mortal enemy of military justice.”

Mattis testified yesterday that he was not concerned when the secretary of the Navy rebuked in 2007 one of the officers that Mattis had cleared of misconduct.

“I don’t have any feelings about this; I do my duty and let others do theirs,” he said. “He has his authority, and I have mine. I was very confident I had done my homework.”

Prosecutors asked Mattis to flip through an exhibit containing pictures of the Iraqi civilians who died in the attack that were included in Navy criminal investigation reports, asking if they had an effect on his understanding of the evidence in the case. Mattis pressed his lips together, nodded and said yes.

Wuterich has said the deaths were regrettable but unavoidable during legitimate combat against insurgents. Some of the men killed in Haditha were found in a home with AK-47 assault rifles, but investigators were not able to link any of the victims to the insurgency.

Rep. John Murtha, D-Pa., a former Marine who died recently, inflamed public opinion after the attack when he said on CNN that the word from top Marine Corps brass indicated the men had “killed in cold blood.”

A general and two colonels were censured by the secretary of the Navy, a civilian, for failing to properly investigate the incident.

Helland is expected to testify today. Wuterich, who cannot speak to command influence issues that arose after he was charged, is not expected to testify.